memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Universe
Prime reality I could have sworn we discussed this page and decided to not add it. — Morder 08:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ;Deletion rationale: Never mentioned onscreen as "prime reality" — Morder ;Discussion: * Delete - Yeah I think that's a good enough reason, could be classed as fan fiction as that phrase is never mentioned Natonstan 09:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC) * Delete - Not mentioned. Also inaccurate, as every reality would consider themselves the "prime" one. I assume this was based on the "Spock Prime" in the credits, but that is for our benefit and was never referred to.--31dot 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC) * As it is, the article is a sub-stub that might as well be deleted. However, the terminology we use (and "prime" seems to have a good chance of becoming our terminology to describe the "1966-2008" Trek timeline) should probably be described somewhere - perhaps Memory Alpha:Point of view, perhaps some production POV article like , perhaps even a background comment at alternate timeline. So, if this article becomes more than the stub it is now, think about merging with one of those. -- Cid Highwind 10:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC) * Note: We could call it the Original reality, referring to all Star Trek material from 1966-2009. (Excluding the alternate reality of Star Trek, of course). * I don't see how using a different name than "prime something" would change this issue in any way. I'd consider "prime" to be at least a valid production POV term, because it has been used by the production. That's more than can be said about any alternatives, I guess. -- Cid Highwind 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) *'Strong Keep:' This reality has been more than referenced and therefore deserves it's own article to describe the actions and consequences of lifeforms in the "Prime reality". Roger Murtaugh 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :*'Comment' but that's not reason to keep it. It's never been referenced as prime reality it's just a moniker that was made up by us to refer to the non-alternate reality. We've gotten along just fine with all the mirror universes and what-not without this. If it is a keep it needs to be an in-universe name - otherwise it needs to be put in a realworld article. — Morder 06:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::*Exactly what "actions and consequences" need to be described in this article? If the term was not used, then there can't be any.--31dot 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC) *'Delete'. This covers most of the in-universe content on MA and anything not in the "prime" reality is already marked as such. If anything this should be a category, but i don't even think that would be helpful. (and I don't want to have to be the one to add the tags to nearly ever page on here). - Archduk3 05:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) *'Keep'. Needed to distinguish from the alternate reality, e.g. the two different versions of Kirk. Even if it has not been called this on screen, we need something to call the reality that the majority of Trek productions take place within. Kidburla 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :*We already distinguish it by calling the new film the "alternate" reality. Since the alleged "prime" reality was there first, it doesn't need to be distinguished from anything, new realities need to be distinguished from it.--31dot 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ::*For example, on the page for Winona Kirk it lists "Status: Deceased (prime reality); Alive (2258, alternate reality)". How would we rephrase this if we didn't have the term "prime reality" on MA? Kidburla 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ::*It should just say "deceased", with no qualifier. Even if I grant that you're correct, this article should still go, as the term was not used in canon. As a canon wiki, that's all we use.--31dot 21:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :::I think this is a special case, as there is no canon term which is a viable alternative. The decision to put simply "deceased" would mean we have effectively disregarded the entire film as non-canon. Kidburla 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :*It doesn't mean that at all. I did not say the alternate reference should be removed or is less important. --31dot 03:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) ::::* The Winona example shows why "multi-timeline" articles are very complicated to handle. The "prime reality" doesn't know that a "new timeline" even exists, so adding a note to events from that new timeline to an article necessarily leads to a POV that is not compatible with another article that is just about "prime reality" stuff. In fact, the whole character sidebar is not really meant to contain that type of information, and I feel that changing the sidebar would be more work than its worth. The distinction between those timelines, if necessary in an article, should be made on a "realworld POV" level, either by splitting the article completely, or in different sections. We've also discussed this on one of the TF pages... either way, this article isn't really useful as an in-universe article. -- Cid Highwind 10:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC) *'KEEP'... for one simple reason: the term is used here on MA, in several articles. The very fact of this makes the article acceptable, as it is an explanation of what the "prime reality" is (I myself do not the term; it sounds too much like "Transformers"!). It's good enough to be used in canon articles but not acceptable because it is "never used in-universe"? Then why is it used here at all? Morder says that it is "just a moniker that was made up by us to refer to the non-alternate reality". MA is a canon wiki. Therefore any description used for any in-universe content by logical inference is canon. – ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| hears you...]] 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :*Find me an example of this term being used that is not a background or production POV comment, not an "out-of-universe" page element (like a disambiguation note) and not a section header on the calendar pages - and of those remaining occurrences, one that could not easily be rewritten to remove a seemingly in-universe reference. -- Cid Highwind 09:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ::*By that logic Crimson, Background information would get it's own page. Just because we call it prime reality doesn't mean it's canon it's just something we use to identify a part of this site that, before, didn't need identification. The term prime reality is no different than say Romances or Physiology or any of the other headers we've come up with to make articles a little more clear. And, as Cid pointed out, it's always used in a background note and has never been used in an in-universe fashion. — Morder 09:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :::*Memory Alpha does not create or define the canon, Crimson. Paramount/CBS does that. Something we use here does not become canon by our usage. Memory Alpha documents the canon. There is a difference. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 10:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :::*Oh, and, delete -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 10:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ::::*In response to what Cid wrote above, I don't even think this term should be used on the calendar pages, since unless otherwise stated, all events listed on them happened in the "prime reality." - Archduk3 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC) * Keep, but as a "Real World" article. The terminology exists because of Spock's credit in the film, and will continue to be used in articles that deal with both timelines. If the terminology exists we should document it, with the clarification as to its out-of-universe source and usage. —MJBurrage(T• ) 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC) :*As a suggestion, I've rewritten the article to be . We do need some term to describe the different timelines from production POV contexts, and if we use a term, we should define it. "Prime whatever" seems to become one of the accepted terms. According to a Google search, it's "prime timeline" more often than "prime reality", so that should probably be the article title. Additionally, there are many interviews with writers and/or producers of , where the question of different alternative timelines running in parallel is addressed. We could get some official description of what actually goes on from these interviews to round off this article, and would, IMO, be better of with that than with deletion. -- Cid Highwind 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC) ::*That works for me, at least for now.--31dot 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) :::* It should stay "Prime Reality" (rather than prime timeline) to better match the "an Alternate Reality" quote by Uhura. —MJBurrage(T• ) 02:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ::::*I've been reading this discussion for a while and I joined just so I could add to it, I don't think theres any two ways around this. I understand this is a canon wiki and as such there are limitations and complications. But I think those people who are saying this page should be deleted should take some time to check out the in-universe articles about the alternate universe. Take the page on the alt universe Enterprise for example: ::::# "You may be looking for the prime universe USS Enterprise." ::::# "The Enterprise had slight differences in appearance from the prime reality" ::::# "The torpedo bay location and style was similar to that of the refitted Enterprise seen in the prime timeline" ::::# (the word "prime" is used 8 times in total throughout the article) ::::* If these references to a "prime - something" (including the redirect at the top of the page!) are acceptable then why is this page not? Just to compliate things even more, if you go to the (and I'll here use the word) prime universe TOS Enterprise article you see this: ::::# "For the new timeline counterpart, see USS Enterprise (alternate reality)." ::::* Referring to the alt timeline as the "new" timeline is an obvious mistake because its only "new" from our POV as the viewer. Something needs to be done to create one acceptable and appliable term to the timeline which existed without Nero's incursion. If production notes, interviews, background information, and the intent of the writers (which I have read about in countless aritcles, and believe me I've read a lot of them) are considered as acceptable than how can the clearly distinguishable and intentional reference in the credits of the movie not be?--Vietminh 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :::::*One thing to note Vietminh - using pages as evidence doesn't work on this site. We have many pages that we have to go through and clean up to match our policies. Especially the newer pages and even a lot of old TOS episode pages. People just find it easier to write something the way someone else has already written something or what they think they should be and nobody has gone back to clean it up. So those are not necessarily valid examples. Also, the items you're referring to are "background notes" and not in-universe and thus a page isn't required for to explain what prime reality is just like a page isn't required to explain what Background information is or Apocrypha and so on...though the way it's currently labeled - I don't have much of a problem with it - I still don't like it though as it's a cop-out... — Morder 06:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::*(edit conflict with Morder)All the mentions of "prime reality" or "new timeline" in the articles (outside of background sections) are unacceptable and should be rewritten eventually (hopefully). People who aren't die-hard fans like you or I and may not have even seen the film won't recognize prime reality, even linked in context, and it causes confusion and fan terminology like that makes the site non-specific and hard-to-use. Production notes, et cetera, are not "as acceptable" as canon sources but are acceptable on a lower level, and I've yet to see production material (outside of the "Spock Prime" references) refer to either of the timelines by a name.--Tim Thomason 07:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :::::*Sorry Tim :) Actually, Uhura specifically references the new timeline as "an alternate reality" when kirk & spock are discussing what to do about nero where spock says to go meet up with the fleet and kirk wants to duke it out... — Morder 07:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ::::*I don't disagree with going through and changing everything, I was just making the point that its in such widespread use that there needs to be an overarching resolution or a policy on how to refer to this thing (if it all). I was also making the point that it isn't confined to some obscure page, but to two pages that are sure to be viewed a lot. From what I've seen production notes and the like have been used to shore up explanations where the canon source may be lacking, or where further explanation is required. So the questions are, is there further explanation required? And is there a strong footing to do that explaining? For question 1 my answer is yes because there are references to an "alternate reality" but it is not explained what it is alternate to. For question two my answer would be a maybe because the credits are part of the movie in that they indicate the name of the character. To ignore the "Prime" reference in the credits would be the same as ignoring any other character who goes un-named on screen and then is credited at the end. We don't say that because they're not named onscreen that we don't know their name at all. So if the credits are a part of the work, and the credits make a distinction between the Spock of the prime universe (not simply just calling him 'older spock' or something), and in the movie the entire situation is somewhat incorrectly referred to as an "alternate reality". Then theres a basis for refering to the original Spock's timeline as the "prime" whatever. I know you're gonna say its just background info, but its background info that needs to be accounted for. --Vietminh 06:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :*I disagree with some of the comments here - and while I think that much of what is now discussed here should probably have been discussed elsewhere (in some purely hypothetical discussion about "what to call the different timelines" that was consciously ignored by many, perhaps... ;)), I'd like to address those comments. :#I think this term is not comparable to "background information". That one has inherent meaning - we know what "background" is, we know what "information" is, so the meaning of the complete term is just the meaning of its building blocks. The same can not be said about the term "prime timeline", so that one needs some explanation if it continues to be used (that aside, we actually do define what exactly we, as Memory Alpha, consider valid background information). :#re:"We could just go around and remove that term from everywhere." - Really, can we? Do you really believe we can go on and write articles referencing facts from this vs. that main timeline (because, let's face it, we now do have two main timelines), without ever giving one of those timelines a title? If you do that, why not practice what you preach before continuing to delete something that might turn out necessary after all. The Enterprise articles have been brought up before, let's use those as an example and rewrite them (1, 2) so that they do not contain any "term" for the original timeline (not "prime", not "original", no nothing). And, maybe, let's expand that test to two other article types - one containing info from two timelines at the same time (like Winona Kirk), and a timeline article (like 2258) - while trying to not give one timeline a greater importance/relevance than the other (which is what we agreed we'd like to avoid). :#re:"New timeline is a bad name, because it's only new to us" - Eh, or "new" in relation to what is "prime" (with the meaning of "coming before" which, basically, means Spock and Nero). In any case, that discussion is one for another page. -- Cid Highwind 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) *Prime reality should just be a redirect to Universe and that should be it. The terms prime reality or prime universe pop up in articles where any alternate or parallel realities are discussed. A redirect is sufficent, there is no need for a new page on this subject, as the universe-article already is about the prime reality. --Pseudohuman 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC) * As I read through this entire argument (or debate as a better term), the first thought in my mind that, if this is causing such problems, then articles (even if they are short) throughout this entire wiki should probably not have information from both realities (Example: Winona Kirk). Agreeably, most information on her page comes from the alternate reality anyways, but still there's a prime example of information from both realities being place within one page and causing a conflict to arise (due to terminology or whatever else). Perhaps all across the board, people, ships, etc... from the movie should be linked to it's own page (alternate reality) similar to how things are with the mirror universe as we are going to see this setting again, and it's much bigger then the typical alternate timeline/reality/whatever you want to call it seen in an episode or two that's erased/fixed/not seen again. By now you might be asking "Terran Officer...what does this have to do with the matter at hand?" It has everything to do with the matter at hand, because as mentioned by others this term (which seemed to be derived from the end credits referring to this man and not this one) is seen in many articles to try and separate the conflicting/different information at hand. I suppose, if it does help at all Lieutenant Commander T'Pol simply described it as "a parallel universe" while Archer simply said "the other side" or something like that (It's been a while since I've seen the episodes). I'm also not necessarily arguing a new category or a way of naming the pages per se, other then that careful consideration in how things are done on Memory Alpha in the future needs to be done. A further (re)defining of what is acceptable and what isn't for canon/article content might be a good idea (Such as are opening/end credits acceptable, interviews, scripts, etc...) as I see where the conflict is arising in some people; a term derived from the end credits from isn't ok, while saying Kirk's mother is a Starfleet officer because the writers said so in an interview, or the countless characters referenced to/named by their credits in a film/episodes end credits/script, etc... is ok. In short, the canon of this term isn't being disputed (man, I've really gone off on a tangent here), but the conflicting nature of what one can use to name/make terms from what sources is. If it's felt this page should be deleted, fine but then redefine what is ok, and not ok to include in an article and from what source (Pretty positive it was onscreen references, but as others seem to argue...) and perhaps separate the content from Star Trek s alternate reality to the "original" one as we know it to different pages (where possible, I suppose some things such as the timeline would be far to complicated then it's really worth) where you then really only have to solve the naming for disimbig purposes and you don't have the articles/sidebars potentially using the term (as others have mentioned). As for the matter at hand, if it's an absolute yay or nay thing, I suppose I'd say to keep it, but perhaps make a real world POV article out of it, but that could still cause a problem, I guess. --Terran Officer 00:38, September 8, 2009 (UTC) :*"a term derived from the end credits from Star Trek isn't ok, while saying Kirk's mother is a Starfleet officer because the writers said so in an interview, or the countless characters referenced to/named by their credits in a film/episodes end credits/script, etc... is ok." I think this is a very good point, no one seems to be making any guff about what the writer's say in an interview (outside the movie) in regards to their intents for a character. But we seem to have a problem with their intentions in the credits. The real point however is that the writer's didn't tailor this movie to fit well into memory alpha, its up to us to change to suit the circumstances, and holding onto the 'old way of doing things' isn't going to make that happen. I think its time this page deletion be resolved, everyone's opinion seems to have been gathered up, and I vote to KEEP. --Vietminh 13:57, 22 Sept 2009 (UTC) ;Admin resolution: * Merged with Universe as a background explanation because the aforementioned article basically describes that this MA derived term used here to describe 99% of the known Trek universe, from which "Spock Prime" originated. Probably could use further explanation in Memory Alpha:Point of view as stated above. --Alan 16:53, November 7, 2009 (UTC) End of the Universe Picard's statement was most likely in jest, in that that place, "Where None Have Gone" (as named by Data), was theoretically just the same, in terms of inexplicability, as any other the Human race might encounter at that stage in its development. Thus, the term "End of the Universe" would be like calling the interior of the Earth, or the center of the Sun, "The Smoldering, Boiling Inferno." Given that Picard did ask, Data's christening, what with the least-implausible name ever given to anything, should be used: Where None Have Gone Before. :I removed the following text from the end of the background section: :While it may be true, it's non-encyclopedic and very much an opinion. -- Renegade54 16:59, February 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Perhaps this page should be renamed "Edge of the universe", including the quotation marks, since it was referred to as such ( 07:09, January 2, 2017 (UTC)) ::: I think to relieve all naming mumbo-jumbo of this article, it would make most sense to simply merge this into its own section of the universe article, as it is referring to the "outer rim" or "edge of" or "end of" said place, or based on the quote on the page, the "beginning" of the universe. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:12, January 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::I agree; merge --Defiant (talk) 17:25, February 9, 2017 (UTC) :::::That makes sense, merge (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 04:41, May 7, 2017 (UTC)) Prime universe Latest episode of Discovery calls the Discoverse "prime universe". Mirror Giorgio uses it during a conversation.Baggins (talk) 17:37, March 29, 2019 (UTC) Whose terminology? "as the terminology used by members of the mirror universe to refer to their counterpart reality." Actually I don't think there is any 'indication' that all members of "Mirror universe' refer to the 'prime universe' as the 'prime universe' (we only have one example of its use in-universe from one "Terran" character so far, and she's not indicative of everyone in her universe). In fact I believe mirror characters in Season 1 of Discovery called "prime universe' but a number of different descriptions, and none of them used 'prime'. Prime universe is also the term that CBS/Paramount developers/writers also use to describe primary universe of Star Trek. It's also the terminology they use for the spin off stuff in the novels and games... It's the term they (and various characters) use in-universe in Star Trek Online for example. Infact, its from the prime universe, that refers to the 'mirror universe' as 'Mirror', see "Despite Yourself". Those inside the universe usually call it something like the "Terran universe", and those who know from prime universe usually call them "Terrans" to compare them against prime humans/characters.Baggins (talk) 18:19, March 29, 2019 (UTC) :The default universe is the prime universe...this is unnecessary, which is also why it was a redirect... --Alan (talk) 18:21, March 29, 2019 (UTC) Technically 'the universe' is all parallel dimensions altogether (not a single 'universe', that should be 'dimension'/'reality'). But Star Trek stumbles over that definiton using it and using unclear colloquialisms all the time.Baggins (talk) 18:25, March 29, 2019 (UTC) ::You could keep this categorized under "slang" and "Mirror universe" (the latter because they, at least one of them, are the ones who call it that). --LauraCC (talk) 18:28, March 29, 2019 (UTC) DOesn't make much sense considering from her perspective her universe ("Terran universe"/"Mirror universe") should be 'the primary universe'... How would she know which universe spun off of which unvierse in the so-called 'multiverse'?Baggins (talk) 18:29, March 29, 2019 (UTC) ::While not the one she originated in, it's the one which she might recognize as the original one predating hers, or she calls it that to avoid confusion because she's here now. --LauraCC (talk) 18:34, March 29, 2019 (UTC) It makes most sense if you understand she is acclimated to living within the 'prime universe' and would then use a term that someone from the 'prime universe' would understand... Not necessarily what people in her universe would call the universe (Mirror universe characters call the prime universe a variety of things between original Star Trek, DS9, Enterprise and Discovery Season 1, btw).Baggins (talk) 18:36, March 29, 2019 (UTC) Star Trek Online calls it the "Prime Universe" too. "Players unravel the mystery of what really happened to her and the crew of the I.S.S. Discovery, after it was summoned to the Prime Universe and never seen again." Baggins (talk) 18:42, March 29, 2019 (UTC) :::Up to , characters from both the 'prime universe' and the 'mirror universe' referred to the universe which was not theirs as the alternate universe or parallel universe. Never as 'prime universe' or 'mirror universe', or the 'Terran universe' which appears to be the name the 'mirror universe' is being called in the current Star Trek series.--Memphis77 (talk) 18:55, March 29, 2019 (UTC) ::It makes sense that those who think they're the first from their universe to encounter it (Kirk and company) would pick a different name than those who actually did find it first (unofficially and classified), and choose a less official name based on what it appeared to be to them (mirroring their own) vs a name based on the inhabitants of said universe's name for themselves/their primary governmental construct (Terran). --LauraCC (talk) 18:58, March 29, 2019 (UTC) : STO is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Alan (talk) 20:05, March 29, 2019 (UTC) The point is "prime universe" is what the Star Trek writers call the universe. https://treksphere.com/star-trek-discovery/discoverys-timeline-universe-we-asked-the-writers/ Baggins (talk) 22:09, March 29, 2019 (UTC) "Up to , characters from both the 'prime universe' and the 'mirror universe' referred to the universe which was not theirs as the alternate universe or parallel universe. Never as 'prime universe' or 'mirror universe', or the 'Terran universe' which appears to be the name the 'mirror universe' is being called in the current Star Trek series." Obviously because Prime Universe wasn't invented until Star Trek 2009 movie. Now Discovery is using these terms so 'fans' can keep track of which universe is being talked about... Next will see if "Kelvin Universe" ever starts appearing in a story LOLBaggins (talk) 22:12, March 29, 2019 (UTC) ::::Technically, we have a multiverse page, so universe should NOT be that, and this should return to being a redirect to the latter. We don't need a whole page for a "also known as" single reference name drop, and the POV of the in universe sections are from the post "prime" universe unless we say otherwise, so this page makes no sense seperate from that. MA also isn't here to make points for the writers of what is currently called Star Trek at the expence of the actual mission of this wiki, which is to cover all of Star Trek. - 01:57, March 30, 2019 (UTC) Classic Timeline and Prime Timeline Due to how everything produced since 2009 - the Kelvin Timeline film and Discovery have been made under the "alternative license" and the fact that Discovery is so out of place with the timeframe between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before", I think we should consider that the Classic Timeline (seen from 1966-2005) and the Prime Timeline (scene at the beginning of Star Trek 2009 and in Discovery) be considered separate timelines. The ship and uniforms seen in Discovery, primarily the Enterprise, look so out of place in relation to "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" - there is almost no way they could be in the same reality. Changing everyone's ships and uniforms to match what we see in Discovery only to change it almost all the way back just before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and then make another uniform change at the time of the rest of The Original Series would be just too much. It would be easier to think that "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" are not in the same timeline as Star Trek: Discovery. My suggestion is that the Classic Timeline and the Prime Timeline are different timelines. Some events were identical in both timelines and some were not. The Kelvin Timeline probably branches off form the Prime Timeline, but not the Classic Timeline. Most definately - the Enterprise seen in Star Trek: Discovery does not look like a transition between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before". If Discovery still happened in the same timeline as TOS, shouldn't there be a few people left in the uniforms seen in Discovery, just like there are still a few wearing the uniforms from "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" in the episode "Charlie X". I know you are trying to do by what CBS/Old Viacom and Paramount/New Viacom tells you, but what they tell you doesn't make sense. They aren't really watching the show and seeing how the visual narrative is playing out. Watch "The Cage", watch Discovery, then watch "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Does Discovery really fit in that space, or does it fit in another reality where "The Cage" happened a little different. The only way Discovery would fit is if after "The Cage", Starfleet ruthlessly recalled all ships and uniforms, refit and redressed to the new style - then just before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" they ruthlessly recalled all ships and uniforms and changed almost everything back - leaving not one trace of the Discovery uniform and ship designs. At least consider having things ready to split the timelines up. It would make more sense. Real Star Trek fans should really sit down with the shows representatives and smooth out the inconsistencies.Vern4760 (talk) 10:49, September 9, 2019 (UTC) : *sigh* The "alternative license" is a myth, made up by YouTube pundits looking for clicks from disgruntled fans. Yes, the visuals of Discovery’s ships and uniforms are discontinuous with "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before." That was an aesthetic choice by the production team, and has nothing to do with narrative continuity. Heck, one episode last season opened with a "Previously on Star Trek" montage, with footage from "The Cage". That's as clear an indication as you can get that Discovery is meant to be in the same timeline as TOS and the other TV series. :There is no need to segregate Discovery into a different timeline. "Prime" and "classic" are the same thing, regardless of YouTube conspiracy theories. :If you don’t like Discovery, that’s fine, but please don’t try to impose your opinions on others. Also, please don’t try to exclude and gatekeep with talk of "real Star Trek fans". We’re all real Star Trek fans, or we wouldn’t be on this site. And real fans can have different opinions: infinite diversity in infinite combinations, remember? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 11:50, September 9, 2019 (UTC) ::Even though I personally hate Discovery, I agree with just about everything you've said, Josiah. But I'd also add that "as clear an indication as you can get that Discovery is meant to be in the same timeline as TOS and the other TV series" comes from not only on-screen evidence but also the stated intent of the production staff, such as has been established in interviews, etc. --Defiant (talk) 15:13, September 9, 2019 (UTC) :Oh, certainly. But in my experience, those who believe in the "alternative license" baloney often dismiss all statements from production staff, believing them to be part of the "Prime deception" conspiracy. They point to on-screen evidence to make their case, but ignore the on-screen evidence that proves their case is absurd. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 16:24, September 9, 2019 (UTC) ::I think that's understandable, given the amount of inconsistencies. Just my personal opinion, although I meanwhile respect (while disagreeing with) the opposite view, that these shows are products of their times & that merely that should be acceptable to explain the differences in production design. --Defiant (talk) 17:14, September 9, 2019 (UTC) :That’s entirely fair. I have no problem with people objecting to the choice the Discovery producers made, to create a series set in a period of Star Trek history with a more-or-less established aesthetic, and to ignore that previously established aesthetic almost completely. My only objection is to those who try to justify their objections with elaborate conspiracy theories about "alternative licenses" and Secret Hideout actually being Bad Robot in a trenchcoat and a fake moustache. :Like it or not, Discovery is real Star Trek, in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, and with as much claim to canonicity as any of them. And yes, it does seem a bit silly to think that Starfleet uniforms looked like this in 2254, then changed to this by 2258, and then back to this by 2265... but then, it’s a bit silly to think that Spock could walk around without his brain, being remote-controlled, or that traveling at Warp 10 would turn you into a giant lizard. And yet, we deal with those. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 02:23, September 10, 2019 (UTC) ::Yeah, agreed. Lol --Defiant (talk) 07:53, September 10, 2019 (UTC)